Being a school photographer has to be just about the best place to exercise all of your (my) photographic muscles. The subjects are diverse, interesting the situations even more diverse.
Indoor production? No problem. In situ portrait, or classroom interactions , again no issue. My kit sports a set of useful primes and a great standard zoom, so no technical issues.
My favourite subject, mainly because it is a license to have fun with little pressure, is sport.
Ironically, that is where I am weakest gear wise. A logical at the time selling off of my 40-150 f2.8 and later my 12-100 f4 has reduced me to shooting sports outdoors with the 75-300 and 40-150 “kit” level lenses.
Now I love these lenses. Tied for best bang for the buck in the system, especially for cost/size/weight, they have both proven themselves over and over as more than capable for casual shooting, but when you have to get the shot, they look a little thin on paper (and I dread the day I am standing next to “that” photographer with a huge white lens monster!).
Last Wednesday, I had my first serious outing with field and indoor sports.
Indoor Netball was fine, although I swear it is the toughest sport to shoot with its fast pace, stop-start dynamic and usually poor indoor light. I spent too long there (had 1 1/2 hours to cover four sports) as I did not feel I had hit my rhythm, but after 25 minutes, I surprised myself and came out with 20 odd “local newspaper” grade shots using the 75mm f1.8 and 12-40 f2.8. This combo is hard to better. Early fears that the older 75mm may not have the newest focussing “legs” I had the pleasure to experience with the 40-150 pro, have been pretty much put to bed and the 12-40 is sure footed and useful, if a little short sometimes.
Hurrying down the hill to the multi field Football and Soccer grounds I was gifted with strong winter sunlight…… for about five minutes.
A crop 50% from the 75-300 at F8 and 190mm, ISO 800 with the EM1 mk2 (original firmware). This was a sequence of about 5 images ending in a solid collision.
I cannot share many images as I do not wish to show the faces of the kids from the school I work for (in the yellow), but just lets say, I was (again) surprised by the accuracy, speed and sharpness of the EM1 and 75-300 combo in reasonable light. The grounds are down low, so they loose the sun early, but while it lasted, it was good.
In a nutshell, if I used my skills and anticipated the action, followed the subject and fired at the right time, the camera made sure I got the shot 75 percent of the time or better and usually managed 100% in sequences.
Another tight drop. This was a sequence of 10 images, all sharp (same stats as above), but the best three, where contact was made images had the student’s faces in. Shame about the messy background, but I found if a I stood in one spot, I could cover three grounds at once, taking what I could get. The benefit of a 400-600mm lens equivalent.
Then came the acid test.
Massive black storm clouds descended over the grounds, stealing what little light there was (about three stops). The maths got nasty. ISO 1600 (my realistic quality limit), lens wide open (about f5.6 in the 200mm zoom position, equal to 400mm on a full frame-it is a hair sharper at f8) and 1/250 to 1/500 maximum shutter speed. Many of the images came out a little dark with the camera set to manual, as the light was occasionally dropping even more. I was not too hopeful.
All I can say is, if that is your kit and situation, don’t worry too much. A little noise reduction to taste, some contrast boosting, lightening where needed, maybe a little localised clarity and you will be fine. Again, local newspaper, back page sports images, even with a little (or a lot of) cropping.
Would I like to upgrade lens?
Yes I would, if nothing else than for weather sealing (which eventually cut my day short).
The (budget limited) options are:
Buy back my 40-150 from the friend I sold it to for about $1000au. Benefit, +2 stops at 300mm FF eq., sharper (better micro contrast), better AF and weather sealing.
Buy the new 100-400 Oly ($2300). Benefit, sharper, better AF, longer range, but no aperture speed/ISO benefit.
The Panasonic 100-400 ($2000au). Benefit, as above, possible not as much in AF, but it is slightly faster at shorter focal lengths.
The Panasonic 50-200 ($2000au). Benefit, longer than the Oly 40-150, but a little slower at the long end. A stop faster and all-round better than the 75-300 at 200mm (400mm equiv) except any real AF performance boost is uncertain with Pana lenses on Oly bodies.
Buy a Canon 80D on clearance with the excellent 200 f2.8L ($2000-2500au). Benefit, +1 ISO and +2 aperture stop boost at 300mm FF equiv. and a sports dedicated 100K + shutter fires. This would also provide a good option for an “R” series switch later or another cheap SLR. Splitting the kits does not bother me as their roles would be quite specific. Olympus for most stuff including some sport, Canon just for sports. The non zoom is a little limiting, but I know from experience that the 300mm f2.8 “hole”* is the problem, not covering a wider range. It also works well with a good teleconverter.
Buy a 6d Mk2 and 75-300 or the 200mm above ($3000au). Benefit, +3 ISO stops, with the same 300mm lens dynamic at 5.6 or +5 (!) stops with f2.8 200mm and FF camera, but lots of cropping. The AF system in the 6D is the same as the 80D, except more centralised as the AF coverage is crop frame.
Nikon would be in the race except they do not offer a range of good value semi-premium tele lenses.
Option B is to just keep going as is and see what the Christmas sales cough up.
*This hole is the mid-wing field sport, or far end of the court, indoor range that is so often the ideal distance to shoot these sports at and my weak area.